Documentar stiintific care arata complexitatea celulei umane si evidentiaza imposibilitatea aparitiei spontane a unei asemenea complexitati. O minte inteligenta e singura explicatie a existentei unor asemenea organisme complexe.
August 17, 2014
false statement of abiogenesis and evolution
Here I find another unscientific claim, this time with regard to abiogenenesis.
It is correct that earky scientists like Haeckel, Darwin and Huxley did not know about the complexity of the cell. That nonwhithstanding you cannot make a point neither against abiogenesis nor against evolution.
Organic chemists beginning with Miller and Urey in the 50s showed that aminoacids and cell-like compounds can form through natural processes in an environment as it was set up by geologists and cosmologists.
Evolution itself is an undisputed fact and not a vague theory.
Next is explained the argument of "irreducible complexity" which is utterly debunked and refuted.
The argument continues like always: Too complex to evolve.
Hence God Created it.
Most of the stuff that is presented is well done, i just object the continuing hints that it must be created. Especially the aspect of comparing it to a giant spaceship goes into that direction without being unscientific from the beginning.
"The cell has such an extraordinary design"; .... could not have emerged by chance as the theory of evolution claims. "Theory" sounds dubious.
Well, the evolution of cells and bacteria is well documented and neither bacteria nor higher life forms need a creator once the process began with abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution did not suffer a great blow. Evolution is firmly established as established as scientific fact and is described in detail by the "theory" - let's use this word in it's scientific meaning.
"Today many distinguished scientists in the world acknowledge that "this magnificent system could not emerge by chance"?!
Who is one of the leading biologists of the world who does not accept evolution? Name one please!
Evolution is not "chance" but a gradual process of natural selection.
Michael Denton accepts a guided evolution, but he goes into the field of cosmology to base his faith. He does not think that evolution is wrong.
His career was in the last century when evidence emerged by and by. He is not a leading biologist of this century.
Next come Richard B. Bliss: a Creationisst; for sure he is not a leading biologist of our time.
Prof. Carl Fliermans did not even make it into Wikipedia.
Prof. Werner Gitt is an engineer and well known for being creationist; he is not a biologist at all, nor a cosmologist.
Prof. Michael Behe is an advocat of ID; his arguments have been utterly destroyed. In the well-known Dover case Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".
Prof Lee Spetner is a physicist, specialized in mechanical engineering. No credentials in biology other than faith. He claims that the loss of genetic information is inevitable with a mutation. Utterly rebutted.
Prof Steve Austin .... the 6-million Dollar man? No entry of any scientist with that name in wikipedia.
Dean Kenyan is well-known as YEC (Young Earth Creationist). So he even advocates that the earth is only 6018 years old. Birthday on the 23rd of october.
Main "hero" for the creationists is Michale Behe; as stated above he admits in court that he has no point.
By adorning myths with scientific pseudo-knowledge neither scholarship nor research can be supported or documented.
Science does not fail to explain complex systems, ID and creationism demand for the permanent and unvisible miracles to guide evolution and creation along every tiny step. That is not science until anybody can show a miracle of the kind that is needed to support this faith system.
Then there follows a lengthy praise of the Lord who created the universe and all life ..... I do not believe it, but if anybody wants to hear that ... fine, but not as a scientific rebuttal of evolution.
The evolution of the eye is one of the best examples that complexity CAN evolve. Watch it in youtube, for example presented by Prof. Richard Dawkins. Yet it is claimed here to be irreducibly complex. The concept of irreducible complexity is debunked in many clips there.
Making the statement in Italian language (with orthographic error) does not help to disguise the lie.
Btw., if man is created to the image of God, why does an owl or an octupus have superior eyes, even superior to God's eyes?!
For using any of this knowledge or just a phone call using a cellphone you would have been burned for applying witchcraft by the faithful followers of Christianity.
Now this cult uses the tools that prove the falsehood of the faith to it's own advantage. Bigottery as can be.
The explanation of the mechanics and chemistry takes lengths, intended to prove irreducible complexity. It only proves my infinite patience.
"At the same time while we see we can smell, hear and ..... "
Well, any animal can, evolution explains.
Citing Darwin who at his time did not know that the evolution of the eye could be explained 150 years later is not legitimate, neither is citing Behe for the forementioned reasons.
This clip does not demolish the "hypothesis that life is simple". The fact is that simple life forms exist and more complicated. All evolved. The first life forms were very simple, arose by abiogenesis and did not survive the selection by evolution.
Here we are, product of evolution, unguided by Zeus, Shiva or Yahwe.
Take creationist crap out of a page dedicated to research, scholarship and documentation of knowledge.
I find many historical text on creationism datin from the 19th century. May they or may they not be left in an archive?
I do not know whether historical texts are included. Soon you will find various forms of Quran, Bible and other religious scripts.